Are democrats trying to twist the 14 th amendment

[vanceen]

Doesn't say anything about court or conviction.
But feel free to change it or add to it however you need to make it say what you want it to.

True, it doesn't say anything about court or conviction.

But to apply the 14th in the way that is being suggested, without any trial or other defined due process, raises some big questions.

Exactly who gets to say that a given person has been guilty of taking part in an insurrection against the government, apart from a trial?

How can we apply a penalty of any kind to someone without some kind of trial or due process, even if the 14th Amendment doesn't explicitly call for it?

As much as I wish Trump could be disqualified from running (it would solve all kinds of problems), I wouldn't want to see the US getting into the habit of preventing people from running from office simply because someone or other thinks that something they did amounted to insurrection.

Trump is guilty of gross irresponsibility at least and possible fraud related to the last election. I think "insurrection" is a stretch, though. And if the charge can be stretched this amount, why not stretch it further if it becomes convenient to stop somebody from running? Maybe just take something they said and frame it in a way that sounds anti-government, especially if they use a word like "fight" or "struggle".

No, it's a bad idea. And it's going nowhere.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Are you familiar with the history of the 14th? It was passed by Congress and ratified by the states to prevent Confederate insurrectionists from taking power through elections following the Civil War. It was not necessary to convict each and every citizen in the rebellion states of insurrection. It only required that they were known to have participated.

It would also interfere with due process, also in the Constitution.

 

[vanceen]

Are you familiar with the history of the 14th? It was passed by Congress and ratified by the states to prevent Confederate insurrectionists from taking power through elections following the Civil War. It was not necessary to convict each and every citizen in the rebellion states of insurrection. It only required that they were known to have participated.

Yes, and in those circumstances it was open and shut easy to establish whether someone had participated on the side of the Confederacy or not.

It's not quite the same as saying you construe someone's actions to constitute insurrection, without any legal process.

 

[vanceen]

Let's face it, like in his non public life Trump has muddled all the obvious rules and made them all questionable to serve his self interest.
No set of laws could ever have envisioned such filth with so much political power.

You're probably right. But I hope you're not suggesting that means we can or should throw out all scruples involving legal processes in dealing with him.

 

[vanceen]

You know liberals couldn't come up with this sort of thing on their own.

They're getting their talking points from a couple of members of that well-known liberal group The Federalist Society

The Sweep and Force of Section Three​

The Sweep and Force of Section Three

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range

papers.ssrn.com

​

Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment forbids holding office by former office holders who then participate in insurrection or rebellion. Because of a range of misperceptions and mistaken assumptions, Section Three’s full legal consequences have not been appreciated or enforced. This article corrects those mistakes by setting forth the full sweep and force of Section Three.​

​

First, Section Three remains an enforceable part of the Constitution, not limited to the Civil War, and not effectively repealed by nineteenth century amnesty legislation. Second, Section Three is self-executing, operating as an immediate disqualification from office, without the need for additional action by Congress. It can and should be enforced by every official, state or federal, who judges qualifications. Third, to the extent of any conflict with prior constitutional rules, Section Three repeals, supersedes, or simply satisfies them. This includes the rules against bills of attainder or ex post facto laws, the Due Process Clause, and even the free speech principles of the First Amendment. Fourth, Section Three covers a broad range of conduct against the authority of the constitutional order, including many instances of indirect participation or support as “aid or comfort.” It covers a broad range of former offices, including the Presidency. And in particular, it disqualifies former President Donald Trump, and potentially many others, because of their participation in the attempted overthrow of the 2020 presidential election.​

Thanks for that, it's an interesting take, although I'm not sure I agree.

By this argument, it would be up to the election officials in every state to make the judgement that Trump had taken part in an insurrection and declare him unqualified to run.

I would greatly prefer this to a pronouncement coming from some single source (and who would it be?) at the federal level.

 

[Linuxcooldude]

Again doesn't say that conviction is mandatory!
In the rambling above a perfect example of what you're talking about is OJ, he was found innocent in a Criminal Court, but still found liable for the 2 murders in a Civil Court.

Yet, OJ received due process under the Constitution. Not just from Democrats that say he was an insurrectionist.

 

[98166]

Yet, OJ received due process under the Constitution. Not just from Democrats that say he was an insurrectionist.

He tried to overthrow an incoming government that’s an insurrection.

 

[A Linoge]

What "enemies" are you talking about?


That would depend what you're referring to. It sounds like you're talking about foreign policy, but the section of the 14th amendment referred to here is specific to engaging in an insurrection/rebellion.


Yet Trump is advocating for the cases to be dropped against him because he said so, and not on going through the legal process.

Iran , again its a matter of opinion

 

[Linuxcooldude]

He tried to overthrow an incoming government that’s an insurrection.

He's not been charged with insurrection. If it were sooo....apparent, he would be charged with it.

 

[vanceen]

He tried to overthrow an incoming government that’s an insurrection.

Words and definitions matter. (Saying so gets me accused of "playing word games" on here, but I really don't care.)

I see no sense in which anything Trump did could reasonably called "trying to overthrow an incoming government".

He is accused (and I think he is guilty) of trying to subvert the election process so as to be re-elected. That's a very bad thing, and I hope he goes to jail for it. But it doesn't seem to fit the definition of "insurrection".

 

[A Linoge]

He tried to overthrow an incoming government that’s an insurrection.

He did how did he do that ?

Did he call for arms and a attack

 

[98166]

Words and definitions matter. (Saying so gets me accused of "playing word games" on here, but I really don't care.)

I see no sense in which anything Trump did could reasonably called "trying to overthrow an incoming government".

He is accused (and I think he is guilty) of trying to subvert the election process so as to be re-elected. That's a very bad thing, and I hope he goes to jail for it. But it doesn't seem to fit the definition of "insurrection".

It’s simple.
If Jan 6th succeeded, Biden would have not have become President.
They came very close to stealing the EC Certificates with that riot. If there were no EC Certificates if would have been thrown to The House. Under that situation Trump wins

He did how did he do that ?

Did he call for arms and a attack

 

[Liberal7360]

That's another fair point, bit I'm not sure if that's going to fly and whether there's the appetite to do this politically.

I don't think the 14th amendment argument will succeed.

But then, I didn't think that trump would be Indicted. I still don't think he will go to prison.

We will have to wait and see what happens.

 

[vanceen]

It’s simple.
If Jan 6th succeeded, Biden would have not have become President.
They came very close to stealing the EC Certificates with that riot. If there were no EC Certificates if would have been thrown to The House. Under that situation Trump wins

Correct.

That isn't overthrowing a government. It's attempting to steal an election. They aren't exactly the same.

 

[eohrnberger]

"Are democrats trying to twist the 14 th amendment"
Democrats are twisting everything else, as has been established by their own actions and statements, why wouldn't they twist that as well?
Their core values includes "Never Let A Crisis Go To Waste" (for political advantage), "Politics Uber Alles", "By Any Means Necessary", and "The Ends Justifies The Means".

 

[independentusa]

Actually read here and you will see its liberals daaaaa

MSN

Actually, the whole thing started with these two conservative professors, double DAAAAAAA. Maybe you should listen and watch something other than far right-wing media.

 

[independentusa]

Correct.

That isn't overthrowing a government. It's attempting to steal an election. They aren't exactly the same.

Both are forms of an insurrection, especially when violence is involved.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Iran , again its a matter of opinion

That's foreign policy and would not count in terms of the section of the 14th amendment; it wouldn't be an opinion supported by the spirit of the law.

 

[A Linoge]

That's foreign policy and would not count in terms of the section of the 14th amendment; it wouldn't be an opinion supported by the spirit of the law.

Again isn't that just a opinion , and you do not see the point .

 

[independentusa]

True, it doesn't say anything about court or conviction.

But to apply the 14th in the way that is being suggested, without any trial or other defined due process, raises some big questions.

Exactly who gets to say that a given person has been guilty of taking part in an insurrection against the government, apart from a trial?

How can we apply a penalty of any kind to someone without some kind of trial or due process, even if the 14th Amendment doesn't explicitly call for it?

As much as I wish Trump could be disqualified from running (it would solve all kinds of problems), I wouldn't want to see the US getting into the habit of preventing people from running from office simply because someone or other thinks that something they did amounted to insurrection.

Trump is guilty of gross irresponsibility at least and possible fraud related to the last election. I think "insurrection" is a stretch, though. And if the charge can be stretched this amount, why not stretch it further if it becomes convenient to stop somebody from running? Maybe just take something they said and frame it in a way that sounds anti-government, especially if they use a word like "fight" or "struggle".

No, it's a bad idea. And it's going nowhere.

Sorry, but there is no need for a trial or conviction, the constitution does not say it requires either, just that the person commit the act and that he has already sworn an oath to the USA. Anyway, any such suit will go before the SCOTUS to decide in the end.

 

[ElChupacabra]

Again isn't that just a opinion , and you do not see the point .

No, because the section of the 14th amendment you're referring to has nothing to do with foreign actors. It was added after the Civil War to have a specific way of handling situations where American citizens decided to turn on the US government and try to over throw it.

 

[Lethargic Aptitude]

I see a lot of liberals trying to say Trump can not run due to the 14th amendment . There are post on this site about it also.
Odd he has not been convicted of any wrong doing in regard to it. Yet they do not want him to run , I wonder why that ?
I always figured that guilt was determined bye a process and in court . Seems liberals are more concerned about stopping him from running then if he is actually guilty.
Whats next a noose ?

Noose? What, did you see Mike Pence somewhere?

 

[switt]

No

 

[yankintx]

I see a lot of liberals trying to say Trump can not run due to the 14th amendment . There are post on this site about it also.
Odd he has not been convicted of any wrong doing in regard to it. Yet they do not want him to run , I wonder why that ?
I always figured that guilt was determined bye a process and in court . Seems liberals are more concerned about stopping him from running then if he is actually guilty.
Whats next a noose ?

Nothing would delight Liberals more than for Trump to be the nominee. It guarantees a Biden second term.

As for the noose, I believe that was MAGAS calling for a noose Jan 6.

Have a great day.

 

[A Linoge]

No, because the section of the 14th amendment you're referring to has nothing to do with foreign actors. It was added after the Civil War to have a specific way of handling situations where American citizens decided to turn on the US government and try to over throw it.

yes it is , giving aide to the enemy and both JOE And O bung did that . every liberal here is missing the entire point